ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2024
Not first-line antihypertensive agents, but still effective-The efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain and hypertension: from sympathetic outflow to brain-focused blood pressure management.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Review
- Part 1 - imidazolines and the changing face of nasal decongestants.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Not first-line antihypertensive agents, but still effective-The efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists: A network meta-analysis.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular disorders are the leading cause of death in the world. Many organ diseases (kidney, heart, and brain) are substantially more prone to develop in people with hypertension. In the treatment of hypertension, first-line medications are recommended, while imidazoline receptor agonists are not first-line antihypertensives. Our goal was to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists. The meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using the PICOS format, considering the CONSORT recommendations. Studies were collected from four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. A total of 5960 articles were found. After filtering, 27 studies remained eligible for network meta-analysis. Moxonidine reduced blood pressure in sitting position statistically significantly after 8 weeks of treatment (SBP MD: 23.80; 95% CI: 17.45-30.15; DBP MD: 10.90; 95% CI: 8.45-13.35) compared to placebo. Moreover, moxonidine reduced blood pressure more effectively than enalapril; however, this difference was not significant (SBP MD: 3.10; 95% CI: -2.60-8.80; DBP MD: 1.30; 95% CI: -1.25-3.85). Dry mouth was experienced as a side effect in the case of all imidazoline receptor agonists. After 8 weeks of treatment, the appearance of dry mouth was highest with clonidine (OR: 9.27 95% CI: 4.70-18.29) and lowest with rilmenidine (OR: 6.46 95% CI: 0.85-49.13) compared to placebo. Somnolence was less frequent with moxonidine compared to rilmenidine (OR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.17-2.31). Imidazoline receptor agonists were nearly as effective as the first-line drugs in the examined studies. However, their utility as antihypertensives is limited due to their side effects. As a result, they are not first-line antihypertensives and should not be used in monotherapy. However, in the case of resistant hypertension, they are a viable option. According to our findings, from the point of view of safety and efficacy, moxonidine appears to be the best choice among imidazoline receptor agonists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.